[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order the Senate will 
now resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 63) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal 
     years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.

       Pending:
       Harkin amendment No. 1578, to express the sense of the 
     Congress that spending for the star wars (Ballistic Missile 
     Defense) must not exceed the fiscal year 1994 appropriated 
     level.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.


                                Schedule

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, pursuant to an order entered last 
evening, the Senate will complete action today on the concurrent 
resolution on the budget, which is now the pending matter. Under that 
order, which is printed at page 2 of today's calendar, there remain in 
order a maximum of eight amendments, which are listed. Each is subject 
to a time limitation of 10 minutes for debate. So it is my hope that we 
will complete action on this measure promptly today. I am advised by 
the managers that it is likely that not all of those amendments will 
require recorded votes.
  Following the disposition of this measure, the Senate will return to 
consideration of the conference report accompanying the Goals 2000 
education bill.
  As I have indicated previously on several occasions, we must complete 
action on both of these measures prior to the Easter recess.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe, pursuant to the order, 
Senator Specter is to proceed and he has 5 minutes on an amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania has an 
amendment on the list. Does he wish to proceed and call up that 
amendment?


                           Amendment No. 1597

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Congress regarding the need to 
 shift the allocation of antidrug funds from ineffective international 
antidrug programs to drug treatment and prevention programs designed to 
                  reduce the demand for illegal drugs)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to send an amendment 
to the desk and to ask for its immediate consideration in line with the 
unanimous consent agreement reached last night.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1597.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to dispensing with 
further reading of the amendment?
  The Chair hears no objection. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON SHIFTING THE ALLOCATION OF 
                   ANTI-DRUG FUNDS FROM INTERNATIONAL ANTI-DRUG 
                   PROGRAMS TO DRUG TREATMENT AND PREVENTION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1991 over 11,000 hectares of opium production were 
     eradicated out of over 238,000 hectares under opium 
     cultivation;
       (2) in 1992 over 22,000 hectares of opium production were 
     eradicated, but the amount of hectares under opium 
     cultivation grew to over 255,000 hectares;
       (3) in the face of a successful opium eradication program 
     in 1992, the amount of land under active opium cultivation 
     grew by 6700 hectares;
       (4) in 1991 over 6,500 hectares of coca leaf production 
     were eradicated out of over 212,700 hectares under 
     cultivation;
       (5) in 1992 fewer than 5,300 hectares of coca leaf 
     production were eradicated, and the amount of hectares under 
     active coca leaf cultivation grew to almost 217,000;
       (6) the amount of land under active coca leaf production 
     grew by 5300 hectares in 1992, and coca leaf production 
     increased by 1200 metric tons over production in 1991;
       (7) the Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that 
     the purity of cocaine available in the United States has 
     increased since 1990, which demonstrates that adequate 
     supplies of cocaine continue to be produced and smuggled into 
     the United States;
       (8) the Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that 
     the price of cocaine available in the United States has 
     remained stable or declined since 1990, again demonstrating 
     that adequate supplies of cocaine are being produced and 
     smuggled into the United States;
       (9) many observers of national drug policy have come to 
     conclude that the efforts of the United States to reduce the 
     supply of drugs through international law enforcement and 
     training, economic development, and crop substitution 
     programs in foreign nations cannot succeed in reducing the 
     supply of drugs available in the United States;
       (10) recent studies demonstrate that drug treatment and 
     prevention programs have achieved notable success in reducing 
     drug use and associated criminality, including the commission 
     of violent crime by drug users;
       (11) the current national capacity to provide drug 
     treatment falls far short of being able to provide adequate 
     treatment to drug users who need and want treatment;
       (12) additional resources are needed to add drug treatment 
     capacity and to expand drug prevention programs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) in setting forth the budget authority and outlay 
     amounts in this resolution, Congress should take note of the 
     failure of past spending to support international anti-drug 
     programs, including but not limited to those of the Agency 
     for International Development, the Bureau of International 
     Narcotics Matters and the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs 
     of the Department of State, and the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration; and
       (2) the budget authority and outlay amounts in this 
     resolution should be reallocated from international anti-drug 
     programs to support successful drug treatment and prevention 
     programs that will curb the demand for illegal drugs; and
       (3) one-half of the budget authority and outlay amounts to 
     combat illegal drugs be expended to reduce the demand for 
     illegal drugs in the United States and one-half of such 
     amounts be expended to reduce the supply of such drugs in the 
     United States;
       (4) no budget authority or outlay amounts reallocated in 
     accordance with the provisions of this section shall be taken 
     from budget authority and outlay amounts for foreign aid or 
     international development other than those accounts that 
     support international anti-drug programs.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is only 5 minutes allocated, so I 
will get right to the point. The amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment which would reallocate funding for the so-called supply side, 
where funds are expended in Latin America for crop eradication and for 
police work in Latin America, which has proved to be unsuccessful, and 
would transfer those funds to the so-called demand side, where the 
moneys would be used for rehabilitation and education in the United 
States.
  We have, for the years 1995 through 1999, budget authority of almost 
$1.2 billion and almost $1 billion in outlays. And this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution would reallocate that to rehabilitation and education 
in the United States, with $1.1587 billion going to education and 
rehabilitation, and $463 million in outlays.
  The facts of the matter are these. Even though there have been 
substantial reductions in the number of hectares of opium production 
and hectares of coca production--and a hectare is defined by Webster's 
New World Dictionary as a unit of surface measure equal to 10,000 
square meters and 1 hectare equals approximately 2.471 acres--even 
though there have been those reductions, the net effect yet has been 
that production has increased. And that is because it is so profitable 
to make opium and to produce coca.
  There was a Congressional Research Service study in April 1993, 
published by the Senate Judiciary Committee as ``U.S. International 
Drug Control Policy, Recent Experience, Future Options,'' and the 
results of that study show that this program has not been effective. At 
the same time, we are very short on sufficient funds for rehabilitation 
of drug users in the United States. The current system has the 
capacity, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to 
treat 1.4 million drug users. And we have as many as 2.5 million drug 
users who could benefit from drug treatment. So the funds were being 
allocated in the wrong way.
  The Senate has twice passed sense-of-the-Senate resolutions 
introduced by this Senator calling for a change in the allocation 
between education and treatment on the one side, known as demand, and 
law enforcement and interdiction, known as supply. Instead of a two-
thirds allocation for law enforcement and one-third for treatment and 
education, there should be a 50-50 split. And there has been some 
movement on the allocation of funds, but not nearly enough.
  I personally have talked to administration officials from the 
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, assistant of the criminal 
division, and the drug people, who all express sympathy, both privately 
and in public hearings. But there has been very little movement. There 
has been, in fiscal year 1993 a split of 65-35 percent and that moved 
to 62.6-37.4 in 1994. The projection for 1995 was 59.3 to 40.7 percent.

  So we have moved from a 65-35 split in 2 years to a 60-40 split, and 
that is not nearly enough.
  The issue of rehabilitation and education, Mr. President, is vital if 
we are to give drug offenders a chance. This ties in directly with the 
current interest in life sentences for career criminals.
  From my own experience as a district attorney of Philadelphia, I know 
that we cannot get judges to impose life sentences, which is a very 
individual matter, simply by having a legislative mandate. What is 
necessary is realistic rehabilitation with literacy training and job 
training and drug treatment so that if an individual fails after a 
first conviction, gets rehabilitation and fails after a second 
conviction, and gets rehabilitation and then comes before the court as 
a career criminal after a third offense--and these career criminals 
commit about 70 percent of the crimes in America; on the average about 
two robberies or burglaries a day, some 700 crimes, statistics show for 
career criminals--and there is an effort at rehabilitation and it 
fails, then you can get life sentences imposed and protection of 
society after you give the individual a chance.
  So it is a matter of humane treatment for the individual, and then it 
is a matter for protection of society.
  We do relatively little congressional surveillance, Mr. President, as 
we all know. We are so busy with the other work that we have in the 
Senate. This is really a shot across the bow to move this limited 
amount of funds. Where we now spend about $13 billion a year on drug 
enforcement and rehabilitation, there should be a lot more accounting 
and a lot closer attention paid.
  When this amendment was filed, I finally heard from some members of 
the administration. This is only a sense of the Senate of what I intend 
to do to follow it through the appropriations process. I see the 
President wielding the gavel. I conclude.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time in opposition?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I believe we can accept this amendment on 
the part of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Let me be clear on just one 
point. Does the amendment actually shift numbers in the resolution?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from 
Tennessee, it does not. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which 
calls for the shift. As I say, it is a shot across the bow, and I 
intend to follow it through the appropriations process.
  Mr. SASSER. I yield to the distinguished Republican Member.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I join you. We are willing to accept the amendment. I 
clearly support the ideas that are encapsulated in the sense-of-the-
Senate amendment. We all understand it will be up to the appropriators 
to decide how this money is allocated between the subcommittees, and 
ultimately what happens to the disposition of the Senator's cause as he 
expressed it here. I see no reason why we cannot accept it on this 
side.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might make one brief addendum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania have additional time?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. He has no time.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask for 1 minute.
  Mr. SASSER. I yield 1 minute.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the 
Senator from Tennessee, in the 2 preceding years, we passed sense-of-
the Senate resolutions for even split 50-50, and they were both dropped 
in conference. This is the third amendment I have offered on the 
assurances of the managers that they would be vigorously defended in 
conference. But I do think we need to get the concurrence of the House 
if at all possible. I know that cannot be determined at this moment.
  But I just urge my colleagues, two very forceful advocates, that when 
the moment of reckoning comes they push very hard. They have deleted 
our two sense-of-the-Senate resolutions from the last 2 years. So I 
urge my colleagues on this and the two amendments on yesterday, to do 
your utmost to have them retained in conference.
  Mr. SASSER. I will assure the Senator from Pennsylvania we will be 
diligent in trying to uphold the Senate's position on this issue.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to sound a note of caution as we 
pass Senator Specter's amendment on the allocation of antidrug funds 
from international antidrug programs to drug treatment and prevention. 
I agree with Senator Specter that we need focused attention on reducing 
drug demand in the United States, and that funds for drug treatment are 
woefully inadequate. Indeed, I have long sought to increase funding for 
treatment to permit treatment on demand for all drug addicts who want 
it, as a policy that would save us billions of dollars over the long 
run in reductions in crime, health care, and other social service 
costs.
  But I do not accept the proposition for an instant that we should 
shut down our international antidrug efforts, as his amendment 
recommends.
  The problem is that the Specter amendment fails to recognize that 
there is a close connection between international drug trafficking and 
our domestic crime and drug problems. The fact that our past efforts 
have not been as effective as they need to be does not justify simply 
shutting down international efforts. We require a smarter strategy, not 
an absence of strategy, which I fear would be the net result of the 
Specter approach, were it to be implemented.
  The existence of international organized crime is understood by 
almost everyone. But often its various manifestations are seen as 
unrelated, random actions that typically are peripheral to U.S. 
interests. In fact, while originating in many, often varying local 
conditions, international organized crime constitutes a very 
significant and increasing integrated threat to a wide range of U.S. 
interests. First, international crime can only flourish to the extent 
that domestic governments are incapable or unwilling to prevent the 
criminals from achieving their unlawful goals. When criminals succeed, 
and governments fail, the governments tend to become increasingly 
weakened in the process. There are many pernicious consequences for the 
United States of this weakening of structures. International criminals 
tend not to be responsible citizens of the world in any realm. They are 
happy to smuggle not just narcotics, but other dangerous materials, 
like radioactive substances used in making a nuclear bomb, and the 
basics for chemical and biological weaponry. The smuggling networks for 
any one prohibited substance can readily be applied to all others. 
Barriers break down, and those who we most want to be protected against 
can gain access to everything they need to threaten us.
  We have grown increasingly used to the terrifying reality that our 
cities contain unsafe areas. This should not be acceptable to any 
American, but it is still a reality that we have been unable to change. 
The violence that takes place every day in Washington, DC, or Detroit, 
or Miami, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, or New York is one direct 
consequence of the effectiveness of the vertically integrated cocaine 
and heroin trafficking networks that exist in those cities, but whose 
leadership is in Medellin and Cali, Colombia. Drug-related violence 
takes place at every level of urban life, and while it is usually 
viewed as a domestic problem, it is also an aspect of international 
crime.
  The drugs come from abroad. The drug profits are repatriated to 
foreign drug kingpins. The idea that we can ignore them and still deal 
with our national drug problem is a policy that will leave the drug 
criminals free to flourish, grow, and develop ever more political and 
economic power internationally.
  Accordingly, it is my considered view that we cannot deal with the 
problems of drugs without a focused attention upon strengthening host 
nation democratic antidrug institutions, integrating our antidrug 
efforts with sustainable development programs, and making greater use 
of traditional multilateral partners, like the United Nations.
  The Specter amendment seems to contemplate an end to all 
international efforts at combating narcotics. Accordingly, while I will 
not hold up passage of the budget at this time by forcing extended 
debate upon what is only a sense of the Congress, I do want to express 
my deep concerns about the consequences for our international efforts 
against narcotics were it to become law.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the 
amendment. Has the Senator from Tennessee yielded back his time?
  Mr. SASSER. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has been yielded back. The 
question is on the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  So the amendment (No. 1597) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the next amendment in order of sequence 
will be an amendment to be offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Florida [Mr. Graham]. I do not see him on the floor, and I am advised 
he is on official business at the White House at the present time. I 
ask my friend from New Mexico, is there anyone on his side who might be 
willing to offer an amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have Senator Gramm, of Texas, en 
route. His would have been the third amendment. He says he will be here 
shortly. I do not think Senator Simon or any of the other Senators are 
available at this point, so we probably have to wait.
  Mr. President, I wonder if the chairman would mind if I took 30 
seconds at this time to congratulate Senator Specter and thank him for 
his cooperation.
  Mr. SASSER. That is fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 30 seconds, Mr. President, to myself.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to Senator Specter that I 
very much appreciate his patience. He has had three or four very 
interesting and noteworthy amendments, and he has spent more time on 
the floor waiting patiently and working with this side. I thank him for 
that. I think he got most of his amendments before the Senate. But I am 
apologetic he had to wait so long. I thank him very much.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee does not have 
time. The Senator from New Mexico has----
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go 
into a quorum call at this time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On the time of the Senator from New 
Mexico?
  Mr. DOMENICI. And that the time be added to the allotted time 
heretofore agreed to, thus not counting against the various amendments 
that are pending.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. SASSER. No objection.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears none. The absence of a 
quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears no 
objection. Is there objection?
  Mr. SASSER. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, I ask that 
the time that the Senator from Minnesota uses be charged against the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears no 
objection. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 3 minutes, the 
time to come off the time on the resolution.

                          ____________________